Should bicycle helmets be mandatory in California?

[rodr]

wow. coming from a website known for their atgatt safety nazis, i would have never expected so many against people protecting their brains.

The question is not "Should I wear a helmet?", but rather "Who gets to decide?".

 

[Eldritch]

The question is not "Should I wear a helmet?", but rather "Who gets to decide?".

The most essential freedom that defines people as free is the liberty to make bad decisions not in their own best interest.

 

[Marcoose]

The question is not "Should I wear a helmet?", but rather "Who gets to decide?".

Before that, is what kind/type of helmet?

Motorcycle helmets perform a very important role in protecting the eyes and the head overall, so when those countless bugs and rocks hit the rider's head, the rider isn't impaired and doesn't lose control of the bike and potentially crashing into others. Like a driver behind the windscreen and cage. All that is good.

Bicycles helmets don't offer that. They only work if the rider hits the top part of the head. I find them silly, like the novelty and 1/3 helmets for motorcycles.

So, govt/insurance deciding that bicyclists should wear a helmet that offer partial protection is silly, but, if it's going to offer real good protection, I can listen to it a bit longer.

 

[stangmx13]

Flawed logic as it assumes bicycle helmets prevent brain injury. They might reduce it, but any force strong enough to result in traumatic brain injury will overwhelm the design of a bicycle helmet.

the specifics of my post were not important. what do u think about the part that someone choosing to not wear a piece of safety gear should disallow them from suing?

also, "overwhelm the design" is a weird phrase. even if u destroy the bicycle helmet, itll still reduce the acceleration of your head and brain, offering some protection. so there must be a range of impacts that would cause a TBI w/out a helmet but wont w/ a helmet. the range may be tiny, but it still exists. some classify a concussion as a very mild TBI and i think its common knowledge that helmets do a lot to prevent those.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

If uninsured/underinsured people who ride (or would ride) without helmets would kindly just die of their injuries, then I have no issue with people riding without a helmet and would prefer the government not mandate helmets.

However, since people don't always die from head injuries, but instead end up requiring long-term care (or worse), then I don't want taxpayer money paying for their care.

"Libertarians For More Laws" FTW!

 

[UDRider]

the specifics of my post were not important. what do u think about the part that someone choosing to not wear a piece of safety gear should disallow them from suing?

also, "overwhelm the design" is a weird phrase. even if u destroy the bicycle helmet, itll still reduce the acceleration of your head and brain, offering some protection. so there must be a range of impacts that would cause a TBI w/out a helmet but wont w/ a helmet. the range may be tiny, but it still exists.

The part where the other party is responsible for the accident. Say someone makes a left turn in front of the motorcyclist. What protection they have is not relevant.

It's like saying that unless motorcyclist wears all the gear with EC approved armor they can't sue if they are in an accident caused by someone else.

Right, it offers some protection, the range is not that great. So why should not wearing piece of gear that probably wouldn't have prevented the damage would disqualify someone from suing the party responsible for the accident?

 

[stangmx13]

The part where the other party is responsible for the accident. Say someone makes a left turn in front of the motorcyclist. What protection they have is not relevant.

It's like saying that unless motorcyclist wears all the gear with EC approved armor they can't sue if they are in an accident caused by someone else.

Right, it offers some protection, the range is not that great. So why should not wearing piece of gear that probably wouldn't have prevented the damage would disqualify someone from suing the party responsible for the accident?

the level of protection would be relevant if there was a law mandating the protection. if i hit someone thats not wearing a moto helmet in CA and they die, i fully expect the legal result to be different than if they were wearing a helmet. i might not want the helmet law that we have now (or a new bicycle one), but i might want the rider to be held responsible for their choice to not wear a helmet.

but u cant say "probably wouldnt have prevented the damage" without knowing the circumstances. "definitely would have prevented the damage" is a possibility that a lawyer might run with. thats y i brought it up.

 

[budman]

No, I don't need the government to be my mommy.

I am with Russ.

 

[Junkie]

Before that, is what kind/type of helmet?

Motorcycle helmets perform a very important role in protecting the eyes and the head overall, so when those countless bugs and rocks hit the rider's head, the rider isn't impaired and doesn't lose control of the bike and potentially crashing into others. Like a driver behind the windscreen and cage. All that is good.

Bicycles helmets don't offer that. They only work if the rider hits the top part of the head. I find them silly, like the novelty and 1/3 helmets for motorcycles.

So, govt/insurance deciding that bicyclists should wear a helmet that offer partial protection is silly, but, if it's going to offer real good protection, I can listen to it a bit longer.

That depends on the motorcycle helmets. There are plenty of half helmets that don't provide any protection from debris. California doesn't require eye protection on motorcycles. In comparison, AZ requires eye protection but not helmets.

 

[ZagiFlyer]

I think they've demonstrated mandatory bicycle helmet laws decrease the amount of cyclists.

Eh, wut? More people using helmets decreases the amount of cyclists? Have you any sources you could site?

 

[Kurosaki]

Eh, wut? More people using helmets decreases the amount of cyclists? Have you any sources you could site?

The logic doesn't seem that crazy to me. People required to wear helmets means more people that won't want to be bothered and just not ride.

 

[Bay Arean]

I'm all for wearing helmets on bicycles, but I don't think we need a law.

^^whut he said.

I always wear a helmet for mountain biking but I am going to risk all the scorn and ridicule by pointing out the obvious.

There's a thread about taking a nice ride up to the Water Temple today on a motorcycle.

When i think of a motorcycle ride, I think of being encased in my tank like helmet; not much visibility, can't turn my head much, etc etc. And even tho' it's mesh, being extra hot in my safety jacket, gloves, etc. Because it's safe.

I am old enough to remember being able to ride without a helmet on a motorcycle. It's frickin exhilarating and I truly miss it, though I have no doubts of its danger, especially on the highway.

On bike wash-chain lube days, I finish the process by riding the Triumph down my court to warm up the engine and dry off things, sans helmet, safety jacket etc. It feels so totally different. I really feel like I am more in touch with the outside. yes, I could be ticketed but as we have almost zero police protection, it's not bloody likely.

You get a bit of that on a bicycle and even though i almost never do, I want to retain that option for a few fairly safe settings, out of reach as an option for a motorcycle.

I would like to retain just a little of that right on two non-motorized wheels. I have accepted it never will be on a motorcycle.

There is no absolute correct truth, always the continuum, in this case, between safety and individual freedoms. In this case, I want to err on the side of freedom, knowing full well that most people already wear helmets when bicycling.

 

[UDRider]

the level of protection would be relevant if there was a law mandating the protection. if i hit someone thats not wearing a moto helmet in CA and they die, i fully expect the legal result to be different than if they were wearing a helmet. i might not want the helmet law that we have now (or a new bicycle one), but i might want the rider to be held responsible for their choice to not wear a helmet.

but u cant say "probably wouldnt have prevented the damage" without knowing the circumstances. "definitely would have prevented the damage" is a possibility that a lawyer might run with. thats y i brought it up.

That's a bit different then saying rider can't sue. Sure if there is a law saying they must and they were not, then there is legal wiggle room, and will come down to who has better lawyers.

 

[ZagiFlyer]

Before that, is what kind/type of helmet?

. . . Bicycles helmets don't offer that. They only work if the rider hits the top part of the head. I find them silly, like the novelty and 1/3 helmets for motorcycles. . .

This turns out not to be the case. Granted, they are pretty useless if you face plant, but almost any other impact is covered. I've been riding bicycles regularly for decades and I've used a few up in accidents. They have protected the side of my head in one case and the back of my head in another.

Also, my wife crashed (the shit out of) her bike and ended up getting an ambulance ride to the ER. The trauma specialist there took one look at her helmet with side and front impact and said there was an excellent chance the fall would have killed her without the helmet. She ended up with a moderate concussion.

But back to the thread . . . I still say that if you can afford to cover your own costs for a poor decision, then by all means we need the government to stay out of our lives. But if you can't afford your medical costs, as a tax payer I don't want to be forced to pay for your questionable choices.

 

[UDRider]

This turns out not to be the case. Granted, they are pretty useless if you face plant, but almost any other impact is covered. I've been riding bicycles regularly for decades and I've used a few up in accidents. They have protected the side of my head in one case and the back of my head in another.

Also, my wife crashed (the shit out of) her bike and ended up getting an ambulance ride to the ER. The trauma specialist there took one look at her helmet with side and front impact and said there was an excellent chance the fall would have killed her without the helmet. She ended up with a moderate concussion.

See this right here is what I have problem with. People look at a helmet and see that it is smashed/cracked and proclaim "Look it did it's job and saved you from a sever injury!" All that mangled helmet means is that it absorbed X amount of energy based on certification, rest went to the head. Without knowing impact speed, etc it's impossible to say what helmet did and didn't do. Did it lessen the impact? Sure. Was it that fine line between slight and sever injury? Who knows.

For ATSM it's dropping a helmet with weight ~3-6kg on to an anvil from 2m and forces withing the helmet not to exceed 300g. The impact velocity should be 6.2meters/s (13.9 m/h).

http://www.helmets.org/stdcomp.htm#ANVILS

 

[Bay Arean]

This turns out not to be the case. Granted, they are pretty useless if you face plant, but almost any other impact is covered. I've been riding bicycles regularly for decades and I've used a few up in accidents. They have protected the side of my head in one case and the back of my head in another.

.

To me, the most likely crash scenario on a bike is going down on your side and I've done it twice. Cracked a helmet too. No, they won't help your road rash if you are going that fast etc.

But to say they don't help isn't correct. I think it saved me from a concussion and maybe a torn off ear, just because of the thickness differential, the helmet hitting first.

 

[Critter]

I say no but if they do I'll finally have a reason to procure this fine piece.

YES I WILL WEAR THIS ON THE STREET

 

[Bay Arean]

^^^ all it needs is the Roman Gladiator fauxhawk.

 

[SFSV650]

But if you can't afford your medical costs, as a tax payer I don't want to be forced to pay for your questionable choices.

Does that extend to questionable choices like:
- not exercising, leading to diabeetus?
- having kids, leading to kids?
- smoking, leading to lung disease?
- drinking too much, leading to cirrhosis of the liver?
- teetotalism, leading to being a bore at parties?
- playing outside as a kid instead of studying, leading to poor grades and a life of unemployment benefits?

 

[stangmx13]

That's a bit different then saying rider can't sue. Sure if there is a law saying they must and they were not, then there is legal wiggle room, and will come down to who has better lawyers.

i did say cant sue for the TBI, no blanket "cant sue", but ya. this is 'Merica, it always comes down to has better lawyers